Fine Schedule Adoption procedure

The law doesn't state that discussing a possible fine schedule is reasonable for Executive Session so we've been told we need to create the Fine Schedule draft in open session prior to mailing it out. Not only can this take many hours to flush out but we're afraid it would spark a great deal of community input during the open forum time before we are even able to come up with a draft document. The other problem is that some of the board members are not comfortable in sharing throughts at the risk of appearing to show favoratism to their friends or being especially harsh on others and in this forum, any suggestions would appear to come from them rather than the board. Thus this appears to eliminate the concept of the board proposing a draft set of rules (fine schedule) to the community to start the 30 day comment period. It seems to start the community input prior to the comment period starting as the board would not have even agreed to send out a draft.

It seems like it wouldn't be unreasonable for the board to collaborate on a Fine Schedule and then present it to the community as having come from the board. Upon mailing out of the draft, the 30 day community comment period would begin and at an open forum following this, the schedule that the board proposed would be discussed with the community and voted on.

We really struggling to get to step 1 when this last method isn't used and the collaboration part is done in open session. Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on this?

If the whole Board wants to draft the document together and they are bound by open meeting laws, then it needs to be laborious process that you describe.

But, if one Board Member or a minority of Board Members or a committee creates a draft, they don't need to have open meetings while drafting.

So, you want to choose (or self-select) drafters who can draft in private. Then, only the debate and adoption discussions are required to be open meetings, not the drafting discussions.

Since you are in California, here's a good place to start:

http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainIndex/MeetingDefined/tabid/1284/Default.aspx

Jayme

The material attached is from a law firm who specializes in HOA law. It's the same firm Daniel referenced. Using a committee would solve your dilemma.

Committee Meetings & Agendas
No Open Meeting Act. There is no law requiring that committees hold open meetings or post agendas. The Open Meeting Act applies only to meetings of the board. Most committees are advisory in nature and deliver their recommendations to the board of directors in open meetings where members can hear the committee's recommendations.

Decision-Making Committees. Even though not required by statute, committees with decision-making authority, such as architectural committees (except for those under developer control), should be open to the membership and should also post agendas.

Directors on Committees. If a majority of directors were to serve on a committee and that committee discussed any item of business scheduled to be heard by the board, the committee meeting would meet the definition of a "board meeting." Civil Code §1363.05(j). Such meetings would need four-days notice to the membership and the posting of an agenda.

Committee Reports. Unless committee reports cover executive session topics, all oral reports by committees to the board should be given in open session so members can hear the reports.

Setting the Agenda. The objectives of the committee are set by the board of directors but committee agendas are set by the committee chair. Boards should not micromanage their committees nor should individual directors interfere with the committee's work. If the board is unhappy with how a committee is being chaired, it can appoint someone else to head the committee.

Read more: Committee Agendas http://www.davis-stirling.com/MainMenu/MainIndex/CommitteeAgendas/tabid/1273/Default.aspx#ixzz12kwKdoz4
from Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC